Government & Its Banks Hate Liberty – Didn’t Make the 5 O’Clock News

Recently a friend of mine who knows that I’m an anal libertarian sent me an email in which he was complaining about the news orgy that Sarah Palin generates no matter what she says or does.  He knew I held a low opinion of the Forth Estate, and probably wanted someone to agree with his analysis of it’s paparazzi work ethic.  It’s just a symptom.

It would take an astronomically modest libertarian to refrain from saying, “I’ve been complaining about politicians dishonoring their oaths to the constitution and a news media that tries to sensationalize the trivial for 30 years.”   I wish I could be that modest.

The limits that the constitution imposes on the federal government still aren’t respected by the general public.  Until they do, the politicians aren’t going to either.  They continue to beg for “rights” bought with other peoples money, not realizing that every individual right they receive is actually putting money in the pocket of the government’s business partners – but only AFTER it’s been pulled out of theirs.

For instance:

  • Food Stamps – (an invention of J.P. Morgan) the money goes through banks to the food production, distribution and sales industry.
  • Low Income Housing – the money goes through banks to civil engineering companies and contractors, carpenters, real estate developers and all the hardware industries that make up a housing unit… plus also the utility companies that provide the utilities (water, electricity, natural gas, sewerage)
  • Agriculture – the money goes through banks to the makers of farming equipment and food conglomerates like ADM and Con-Agri which also get money from Green Stuff (Energy) funding.
  • Traffic Safety – the money goes through banks to civil engineers, highway construction and maintenance, traffic signal and sign makers, insurance companies, seat belt makers, baby seat makers, plastic, glass, tires, computers, GPS developers
  • Healthcare – the money goes through banks to insurance companies, hospital management companies and their union employees, pharmaceuticals, diagnostic machine developers and producers, alternative food makers
  • Homeland Security – the money goes through banks to… (you can imagine all the companies on the governemnt teet here and I don’t feel like trying to list the top 10 or 20, but it’s almost the same as Warefare listed immediately below)
  • Warfare – the money goes through banks to nearly every company that is in any way connected with building the ingredients of planes, ships, weapons systems, weapons avoidance systems, Armour, engines and propulsion systems, computers – this list is virtually endless,
  • The controlling, regulating and enforcement bureaucracies – they take their money off the top of every single individual item in the above list — AFTER IT GOES THROUGH BANKS.
  • Green Stuff – the money goes through banks to anybody with a crackpot scheme that pretends to, or actually does create an energy source dedicated to reducing our dependence on petroleum.

When I was just a wee lad (70 years ago), this dependency ethic was still being perfected and almost none of the above examples of that ethic were implemented.  Back then about the same number of people starved in the streets, failed at business and developed newer, more efficient methods as they do now.  The big difference between then and now, is that back then you couldn’t know ahead of time whether you’d succeed or fail and then learn through experience the things that went in to success and failure.  Now days, you don’t have to work to get food, shelter, healthcare, or to start a business without concern for its ROI.  No wonder poor people thought they could get rich by simply buying houses in every waking hour.

Only the most immodest libertarian would ever say, “I told you so.”  It’s a pity, but that’s more like me.

I ask myself – “Could Palin be any worse?”  I answer myself, “Only with extreme difficulty.”

There isn’t enough outrage to go around

Whenever I’ve heard political opponents debate whether the Social Security “Trust Fund” was (is) a Ponzi Scheme, I’ve always just assumed that they meant (at the worst) it couldn’t sustain it’s viability because (like any Ponzi Scheme) without a continually increasing number of donors, the income generated would never be enough to pay the promised benefits.  I never assumed that the whole thing was designed from the beginning to help fund the general spending of the government.

Then I read this October 16, 1999 – Cato Institute article.

So… Based on the actual words and intentions of the Social Security Act – SS is even worse than Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi Scheme – EVEN IF the income base continually grew – coupled with budget shortfalls, dependent on deficit spending – it was designed from the get-go to depend on new taxes to pay for the benefits that were sold by telling people that FICA taxes would be the real source of funds.  The whole thing is based on a lie, except for the fact that it’s all described in the law.  We were (and still are) too trusting in promotional hype when it comes to buying government crap.


This quote is from a recent Ron Paul newsletter

“Interest payments on our federal bond debt likely will amount to about $500 billion for fiscal year 2011, an average of $41 billion per month.  Federal tax revenues vary by month, but should total around $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion for FY 2011– an average of perhaps $180 billion per month.  So clearly the federal government has sufficient tax revenue to make interest payments to our creditors.  For now, those interest payments represent about 12% of the total federal budget.  What nobody wants to admit is this: even if the federal government has only $1.5 trillion remaining to spend in 2011 after interest payments, this is PLENTY to fund the constitutional functions of government.  After all, the entire federal budget in 1990 was about $1 trillion.”

Raising the debt limit is only necessary if we borrow MORE than we have already borrowed.  In other words, it’s only necessary if we don’t quit INCREASING the amount that we borrow… not increasing the amount that we spend, but what we have to borrow in order to spend.

There isn’t enough outrage to go around.